Mark Bolland, Andrew Grey and Ian Reid, the authors of the article, comment:
The appropriate comparison to assess the effect of calcium is between the sunlight arm and the sunlight plus calcium arm, which only differ by use of calcium. This comparison showed increased all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in the sunlight plus calcium arm.
It is not surprising that our article challenges some readers because calcium has long been thought to be safe and effective. In 2005–06, five large randomised controlled trials were published on calcium with or without vitamin D in community-dwelling individuals with fracture as the primary end point.3-7 The trials provide a strong evidence base to inform clinical practice. None of them reported statistically significant reductions in fracture, but individual studies reported that calcium increased the risk of hip fracture, 7 cardiovascular events,7,8 kidney stones,5 and hospitalisation from gastrointestinal symptoms.6,9 Additionally, calcium was poorly tolerated (compliance approximately 50%). Meta-analyses confirmed these findings as discussed in our article.
Individually, concerns regarding the lack of efficacy, safety or poor tolerability of calcium supplements would provide a good reason for revisiting their role, but collectively these concerns provide a compelling argument against their widespread use. We think that dispassionate reviews of the evidence will lead to similar conclusions to ours, as shown by the US Preventive Services Task Force recently recommending against the use of calcium and vitamin D for primary fracture prevention.10